If I may suggest, it's high time you do so. The 1st delegate, User:Marskell is not active on the wiki at all, and the 2nd, User:Joelr31, appears to have very little to spare for this activity as well. I think that articles that are showing no improvements should be moved to the FARC phase in the two-week timeframe rather than dragging them on for a month or more. Perhaps User:YellowMonkey could be appointed? He seems very active in that area, and has a long track record on the wiki (I've never interracted with him, so this isn't a plug for a wiki friend.) Xasodfuih (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I am willing to do this. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There was talk of reviving this, so I temporarily reactivated it to see if it would fly. I fiugred it was a good place to gather folks to improve articles which were not covered by wikiprojects and possibly underrepresented at WP:FA. I threw up a few ideas of articles able to be improved by a wide range of people (non-esoteric in scope and pretty general), that were in a fair condition to get to GA without too much fuss and maybe FA.

I figured given you'd stared at a screen of Featured Articles longer than most of us, you'd have a few ideas about what was underrepresented and may want to throw a few comments on the page or talk page (eg some articles of manageable scope and fairly good condition within an underrepresented area). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you look into User talk:Roostafari and provide WP:IPEXEMPT as needed if this user is actually collateral damage. If they are actually Scibaby, feel free to decline his/her request. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, I posted the previous message in the wrong section) Hello their. Curious to why my access was "blocked" until 2014. Seriously? My communication regarding court (state/federal documents) being a reliable source if infact sufficient. I guess their not on here which doesnt seems right. I was told a "news" agency is reliable but a federal/state web-site that has public court documents to view are not....? Doesnt seem right but yet I was blocked for that? I would like this removed please. Thanks Greystone36 (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)greystoneGreystone36 (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone36 (talk • contribs)

You edit from a range used by a log term vandal. Log in and the block will not affect you. Raul654 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

http://wbztv.com/watercooler/pets/ugly.cat.scary.2.949524.html <-- Best cat ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferTiger (talk • contribs) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I've sent you an e-mail about the FAC delegate position; when the work starts becoming less fun and rewarding, it's time to evaluate options. I'll support whatever you decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy!!!! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it, Sandy. Raul654 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs hasn't posted since the 4th, which is unusual for her (she always takes weekends off, but isn't often missing for 6 days). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry - give her a few days. Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

cross-posted from my talk page I'm sorry I haven't responded more quickly, but I've had computer problems and a nasty cold and am just now feeling semi-human again. I would be happy to help with FAC promotions/archives (I don't visit FAR at all), but I cannot commit to even half of the time that Sandy currently spends on the process. Some months I'm online a lot, and some months I barely seem to reach FAC. (I also have no way of estimating how much time I'll spend on-wiki this summer when baby arrives - I'll either be so desperate to have any conversation with a human who doesn't cry that I'll be online all the time or I'll be sleeping all the time.) If you think it will be enough for me to share a small portion of the responsibility with Sandy (and possibly YellowMonkey?), then I'll be happy to help; if you need someone who is sure they can consistently handle a larger percentage of the workload, then I'll be content with my current activities. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know a few people I could propose giving the job to. Myself, I am probably not a good choice. If you want me to tell you who I believe, be my guest and ask.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 19:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, if we are shamelessly asking - Me Me Me! As your FAC delegate, I promise to promote moar cat based pages so that every Caturday can have a new cat based page! XD Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you have multiple FA delegates? Would reduce the workload.--Patton^t/c 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable idea, actually. Assuming it hasn't been proposed already. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it already is part of the consideration. There were two FAR delegates, no? I think that was the idea Sandy had. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cough! and certainly not the ADD princess ----> Moni3 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created a centralized discussion here. Raul654 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 18, 2009: Opera (web browser) is at FAR. Gimmetrow 01:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Too funny, I just nominated Parallel computing for Pi day. Ah well. Awadewit (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I mean to replace Opera per Gimmetrow's above notice, but mistakenly scheduled it for the 17th. Thanks for the heads up :) Raul654 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe there is an article on Pi Day. Too funny too. I was a math major, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is. This is Wikipedia, after all. I'm just surprised it isn't better. Wouldn't it be fun to get it to FA and run it on Pi Day next year? My lofty dreams. Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. I'm too busy with an article at FAC (though it isn't doing much) and two more waiting in the wings. As an undergrad, I was a member of what we called the "Sub Pi Club" since my GPA<pi. I nearly disqualified myself my final semester though ... finished at exactly 3.14.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. Perhaps I'll try to recruit some people to help me when I've finished with Frankenstein. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Pi article itself is quite good. It wouldn't take much to get it up to FA status. Raul654 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but then I'd have to know something about math. :) With Pi day, I, um, don't. *moves off to sci-fi in embarrassment* Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I forget if there is somewhere to discuss this but if you want a free image for The Log from the Sea of Cortez this map is PD. Might look crap of course; I leave it to your better judgement. Yomangani^talk 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant.
This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The AfD that you cited (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) was about the NIPCC, which came out of the ICCC but is not the same thing. It was also a year ago and ended with no consensus and a "recommendation" to redirect. If you look at most of the non-keep arguments, they either claim that there is no notability or that there's no evidence that it's notable outside of the conference. This year's conference has been covered in many news outlets, as you can see here and in the large number of sources in the article, certainly enough to meet WP:N IMO. The other concern doesn't apply to this article because the conference clearly existed, was attended by numerous notable people in both science and politics, and was well-covered by sources. If you think this shouldn't be an article, another AfD is in order. Oren0 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as the message at the top of the page makes clear, there was no consensus to delete the article. There was, IMO, a pretty clear consensus to redirect it, although it was unclear what to redirect it to. As for the reasons, I'm seeing far more than a lack of notability outside the conference, such as:

• "may be to prone to POV problems" - Realkyhick
• "There is no evidence that the NIPCC even exists" - Kim D. Petersen
• "It does stink of a publicity stunt, and the name seems to be chosen to deliberately confuse " - Ioliver
• "a barely notable cheap trick to confuse people about who is speaking" - Dhartung

So clearly the reasons go beyond the lack of any media attention. As for this year's conference, simply re-running the same conference with the same names does not make it any more notable than it was last year. Raul654 (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am fully prepared to take this user to ANI for purposeful disruption ala point violation. You can get a sense of it here.

Reason that AGF no longer applies: Would you like me to pick apart your "best FA" as well? You teach grammar to college students? In what language? English? Then (in addition to the howlers above) what explains: "I teach college students grammar?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Found here.

As you can see, the early life is mostly that original Johnson biography that was split off to make room for 30k of new text added weeks into the Johnson FAC after it already received a thorough copyedit by a lot of people. This was even stated at the top. Then he takes grammatically correct sentences and says that they are wrong without any proof? His own understanding of syntactical terms is completely wrong. For example "parallel structure" does not mean words in a list. It means multiple sentences in a row that connect to the same thematic pattern. (i.e. saying "Love is great. Love is gentle. Love is nice." is a parallel structure). Then he asks what meaning of "dominate" is used.

Well, I suspect that the user is not a native standard English speaker, especially when their contributions are mostly based on Indian culture and literature that show a direct experience. Regardless, it is clear from the comment before that he doesn't understand FAC and is disruptive. I am taking this to you because you are the FA director and that you deserve the chance to settle matters at FA before it goes to a place like ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a mo'. If you're considering taking Fowler&fowler to ANI, I think first a central discussion to FAC and how editors should handle opposes should be held. If it should be specifically about Fowler&fowler or rough FACs in general, I do not know. SandyGeorgia has recently clued in FAC admins to step in to sort out the chaff. If this needs to be done for Samuel Johnson's early life, then I'll be happy to do it on the FAC page. It looks like a lot of commentary you object to is on the talk page for the article. In that case, I suggest re-posting comments you find abrasive and striking through the irrelevant commentary, leaving the heart of the objection: e.g., "This awful article makes no sense and has clearly been written by a trained monkey. Get a copy edit and call me when you get some talent." Such wasted energy... This may boil down simply to your response: "No. I do not think your changes are wise. I will not change the article per your requests." And there you go. It puts pressure on the FAC closer (apologies, Sandy, Raul, and maybe Karanacs), and makes you fret that it will never be featured. That is the risk we take when we nominate articles we have pored over for weeks. I would recommend waiting 24 hours before refusing to make changes, however. I get so hot and I am so certain I am right and everyone else is wrong during an FAC that I need to take a pill and walk in the woods. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it, Moni3. With his directly attacking -me-, I put up the Johnson article because I knew that so many people copyedited the text that he wouldn't be able to find any real complaints. I could care less if Johnson's early life was passed now or in three months, and I have been sitting on it for a while now. However, it was in part to see if he is really here to troll. His oppose of it and his comments about it prove that he is. He is targetting me. Why? Who knows! Perhaps I opposed one of his pages before. It is obvious that he is, because he picked Johnson out of all the articles to review. Look at his contribs and you will see that he doesn't spend time as a FAC regular. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I may not get it. But I think I do. However, Fowler&fowler has started a thread at FAC. I think a comprehensive introduction to whatever problems you're having should be there. Apologies for the repetition, but here in this thread you've linked to three different locations. This thread is a fourth. It's already confusing. We should put it in one location to get as much input as possible to avoid it getting out of hand due to confusion. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the only location that I am dealing with it. The links above are to evidence of a behavioral problem that is unfit for FAC. I would like Raul's response as the director before I proceed in any direction. However, it seems obvious that with Fowler not reviewing FACs regularly yet reviewing mine in the exact same way is problematic, especially when one was obviously of such a quality and background to make his oppose laughable. If he has some vendetta against me or just felt like causing problems, who knows. But the behavioral patterns are obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, the discussion about your interaction with Fowler&fowler will be had without you, by your choice. Contentious FACs that require administrator intervention have been rare in the past, but they seem to be picking up. I do not believe most of the editors at ANI are aware of the intricacies of FAC. Therefore, the discussion should be at FAC. There are admins who know enough about article writing, who have gone through FACs and have reviewed them as well, who keep WT:FAC on a watchlist and can give their opinions on this. I believe their opinions are more relevant than admins who chase sockpuppets or deal with vandals mostly, such is the majority of what is found at ANI. Plus, FAC regulars will be able to tell if there are valid points amid objectionable language. It would not hurt to have learned opinions and sober advice from uninvolved editors. You have clearly asked Raul to participate. Let us help you out here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Moni, I am accusing a user of WP:POINT and WP:STALK. This doesn't concern the FAC process. It does concern the grounds of the FAC but not other reviewers or opinions about the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're accusing Fowler&fowler of. I'm pretty sharp. Will you accuse others who object to your articles? Could a user who consistently brings articles to FAC that are clearly not ready also go to ANI to ask for admin action because their articles are objected to? Worse, what if I remove or raise objections to an article three times in a row: am I stalking the user? Is it merely the objection to your article at FAC or the way it is being objected to? Does Fowler&fowler have any valid points? Are you so caught up in the stress of an FAC that you're being played like a cheap violin? Are you hoping for a topic ban or an Ottava Rima-nominated article topic ban? Won't it seem as if you are silencing your critics with this heavy-handed move, when the object of an FAC nomination is to improve the article as much as possible? These are hypothetical questions. This is not: what is it you think or hope someone at ANI is going to do? It's my view that these are fine issues more suitable for the regulars at FAC to sift through. I cannot stop you from taking it to ANI, but I think that is an unwise move and you will be worse off than before. I think the most constructive way to handle this, for you, the article, and the FAC process, is in a central location, with input from multiple experienced editors. I wish you the best of luck on it, though. --Moni3 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - A user comes to a page that has one of our great FAC editors and accuses them of having the worse prose and didn't bother to read past the lead. They then attack me, claim I don't know English, and say that they will tear apart the language of the Johnson page. Then they make the same basic argument, oppose over a page they didn't bother to read, and demand a copyedit when there were already dozens of our best copyeditors at the page last year to check the language. That is beyond any action that a "good faith" reviewer would take. I already have over 2 dozen people who believe that his actions were inappropriate the first time, and many others who wewre there when I discussed putting this page up at FAC to see how he responds found him to respond exactly as we predicted if he was here just to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Antiparallel net force.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please reply to my post at Orchestrated?. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm delighted that you've appointed another delegate to share what is an arduous load. Well done. Tony (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, this was a sound close. It was going downhill. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I was out with a medical appointment almost all day yesterday; I'm going to start through FAC now, Sunday (just so we won't edit conflict). I'll be out again all day Tuesday, so that may be a good day for Karanacs to get her feet wet for the first time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul, Museum of Bad Art, a 4/1 contender, is now promoted. I know U.S. Route 491 also planned to contend for 4/1, although the humor potential there escapes me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this: User:Davemeistermoab/U.S. Route 491 - main page blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. 491 used to be U.S. Route 666, and odd things happened because people associate 666 with the Number of the Beast. I prefer the Museum of Bad Art myself. Royalbroil 01:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The main page blurb is being worked on on the talk page for Museum of Bad Art. If you want something edited in the blurb: don't like something, or would rather see elements of one in antoher, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rough outline only, needs more eyes: Wikipedia:FCDW/FACFARdelegates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I wanted to ask your opinion on a issue that is holding up the RCC page from evolving toward FAC again. We are currently in mediation [1] over use of the word "officially" in the lead sentence. Some editors say that both Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church are official names of the Church. Fifteen other editors and myself have disagreed with this argument because there are no good sources to support that suggestion and several expert sources that support only Catholic Church. The opposers have cited the website of the Church in Hawaii that uses the name "Roman Catholic Church in Hawaii" as the legal copyright on this website as evidence that Roman Catholic is an official name. I wrote to the Diocese of Hawaii and received an email from a very top official of that diocese who gave me a detailed explanation not only of the Hawaii diocese's name but also of the official name of the Church and why they used the term "Roman Catholic" in the web page copyright. I think this email could clear up a lot of misconceptions being tossed around at mediation and I want to know if this can be uploaded somehow and somewhere on Wikipedia to provided official guidance for Wikipedia users. Please let me know. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just type up the text. We'll take your word that you are not lying about the contents of the letter. And FWIW, I'm sure you're right - their definitive book is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic church. Raul654 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't doubt the truth of the above for a moment, but just amusing that when reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, everyone seems to be "In one holy catholic and apostolic Church" or believes in "the holy catholic Church". Came across that in the Piskies, but just about all the Christian churches seem to do the same. . dave souza, talk 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Raul, I'll post it to the talk page of Catholic Church, the author gave permission to use his name and title but requested to keep his email private. If anyone wants to verify they can just contact him by calling the diocese or emailing him via the published email on their website. NancyHeise ^talk 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick work! I scoured the commons for that, to no avail. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

If the article keeps improving at its current rate, it might be worth shooting for FA status in another month or so. Raul654 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a video of Modified racing that I converted from AVI format to OGG using ffmpeg2theora. For some reason, the audio doesn't come through. I've done this before (here) but I don't remember how I did it. I know this wasn't the way. My O/S is XP. I've read Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files. You can respond here on your talk page. Royalbroil 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it! I used MediaCoder and everything works. Royalbroil 11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi , Stephen Colbert on the The Colbert Report discussed something he called shmeat, and it’s a meat that is grown in a lab from real meat cells, so seeing that you made a redirect for shmeat to mock meat I thought you should check it out and maybe create a page about it.

See Colbert discussing it here [2] its the second part of the show

Bloger (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the interview - that's why I created the redirect. :)

Shmeat is a meat analogue, that's why I redirected it. There's no sense in having two articles on the same thing. Raul654 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So why not at least a section about this specific Meat analogue?

Bloger (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Protonk for a Common Sense Brick for this comment on why arguments against promoting admins because of the number of existing admins are needlessly destructive. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to have to ask you to stop tagging users as suspected socks of JarlaxleArtemis, because consensus was reached at an MFD to stop doing so. Could you delete the userpages for the users on this list ? Thanks--DFS454 (talk) 21:07 ,20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - it's a habit I've gotten into with other users, but I'll try to remember to make an exception in his case. Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul654, and thanks for the work you do for Today's Featured Article ! I was pleasantly surprised to see First-move advantage in chess reaching the Main Page today. Unfortunately, due to my brain having taken a week off, I was not able to find out the discussion on its nomination, despite one hour of search in various edit histories of Wikipedia:Today's featured article, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2009, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending and a few others. Could you please tell me on which page (even if it is only in the edit history) I can find the discussion about its nomination ? Thanks in advance ! SyG (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak for Raul, of course, but I do help out quite a bit on the TFA/R page, and can tell you that community nominations make up probably only about a third of the articles used on the main page. The remainder are selected by Raul directly. The chess article did not come through TFA/R and was selected directly by Raul, so there is no discussion to find. Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK, I see. Thanks for the explanation ! SyG (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 29th, Columbia University area Last: 01/18/2009 This box: view • talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this editor has come up with an unblock request, claiming he's on one of the ranges you blocked against Tile Join. Would you mind taking a look at things to see if anything can/should be done? Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on his talk page. Raul654 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't you interested in developing our own WikiMapia system? Wouldn't a WikiAtlas sister project be useful to wiki media? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested, but it is not up to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did mention it at the Meta Wiki before but any discussion seems to get overidden with other discussions underneath and in the end it ends up being only two or three people commenting on it! I think that a WikiAtlas sister project would be a great idea and whereas with WikiMapia it is just a map with names, our own Atlas project could have the articles on wikipedia wiki linked on the atlas or at least a summary comes up when you hover over a place name etc so we take the maps a step further by actually providing information about these places by linking to wikipedia. Like WikiMini Atlas but obviously more professional looking maps and details, showing highways, towns and villages, evne landmarks like notable govenrment buildings and churches, airports etc with labels like wikimapia when you zoom in on them. It would also fit in with standard encyclopedias which always have a proper atlas for reference usually in the center. I just thinking that the information provided on maps should be part of our overall project goal to provide knowledge and the goal which WikiMapia is trying to achieve, "with the aim of describing the whole world" is pretty much our own philosophy within reason. I think the wiki project is large enough in scope to make it successful eventually. I know a great deal of people look for maps on the web of places for a reference but where we could differ from google and wikimapia in this respect we would have info summarised about these places too rather than just location. If given time to develop it might even help generate more traffic towards the site and project in the long term if more and more people use it for a reference when looking for maps too. I would very much like to help make something happen in this area, could you mention it to anybody on the board or suggest how we might start a fuller discussion on it? Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are genuinely interested could you please mention it or suggest a way we can work towards making it happen? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

File:MGM hat.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Sorcerer Hat.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Sorcerer Hat.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you have chosen to protect your WP:ATTACK page, please add a section there on vandalism and include this reference. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

On 25 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miss Amelia Van Buren, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm seriously surprised at how oddly this process is handled - I was told, in all seriousness, that because there are other music articles on pop music that an article on an opera does not count as underrepresented, for instance. (!!!) So what on earth does count as under-represented? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, yes. Because there are more than fifty articles in the WP:FA music category, it does not count as underrepresented for TFA/R purposes. That is just the way the rule has been for the almost a year I've been involved there. Change needs to come from WT:FA, I think. If they changed the categories, TFA/R would follow along. I'm sorry if I've been hard on you, but I try to apply an evenhanded approach to evaluationt points. Your mileage may vary.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But there's only 9 featured articles on all of classical music. I find this claim that because pop music has been featured classical music isn't underrepresented ridiculous. Why should anyone try to counter systemic bias in FA, when that bias will be used to belittle their efforts? That has to be the most half-arsed definition of diversity ever considered. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is why you get the bonus point for no similar articles. You don't see me saying that your article is similar to athe band or pop singer articles you get on a regular basis? The points are two different things. To encourage the small categories, and also to bring in neglected areas. If you want to separate out classical music, really, you should propose that on the FA talk page. The rule basically transcludes those categories over to TFA/R and we don't have discretion in applying them, we just count the number of articles in the category the article was assigned to, over fifty no points, less than 50, a point.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seems an odd way of handling things. It's not going to promote any real diversity, such as, say, articles on African history or other systemic bias issues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The real test is in the voting anyway. Regardless of points, people hesitate to replace an article with a long list of supports. And it is only community recommendations, we count on Raul to fill in the blanks and make things diverse. Incidently, we are running an African history article in 3 days, which had broad support. If you bring in an odd article, people love it, look at the stream article right now! I don't think the system is perfect, but we've had things stable for months, and allowed Raul and SandyGeorgia to focus their limited time elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul. Sandy and I noticed that the warfare category of FAs has reached over 200 articles. We've started a discussion on whether the category should be subdivided. I've invited the WP MilHist coordinators who are active at FAC to weigh in, and, of course, we need your opinion. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:FA#Warfare.3F. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a "Good God Y'all" category that corresponds with "What Is It Good For?" Placement of articles in either category should be decided by one of those 26-sided die used in Dungeons and Dragons. --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How does two weeks from now sound for a review draft for The Wikipedia Revolution? Since there will be multiple reviews, I suggest taking a particular focus and/or a personal approach rather than an exhaustive evaluation. Length would be up to you, but I suggested the ballpark of 400-1000 words to Durova and Steven Walling.--ragesoss (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think two weeks should be possibly. I'm about 60 pages in at the moment. Raul654 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Matsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (the same template everyone else gets) Art LaPella (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi on Kenneth Pinyan. I'd been considering requesting that for a while, but never quite got around to it. At this point it seems unlikely that there's much verifiable information which isn't already in the article. (Surprise of the day: It gets around 1000 hits per day on average.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: WP:3RR. Since my edit was good, I think you are trying to get me to undo a second time again. --Chuck (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was not good, for reasons that have already been explained on the talk page. The fact that you have been reverted twice by two different admins in the span of just a few minutes should hopefully illustrate this fact. Raul654 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ain't no such thing" is equivalent to "Is not no such thing." Ain’t means aren’t, isn’t, or am not.--Chuck (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ain't No" is an idiom. It cannot be further parsed into constituent words, which is exactly what you are (wrongly) trying to do. That is why the dictionary gives exactly the opposite meaning that you do. And I trust the dictionary a lot more than I trust your word on the subject. Raul654 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I'm going to talk to Marskell; can you hold off on decisions for a bit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Raul654 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say give it a day or two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know I am putting off my desire to get off FAR for the time being. Joelito (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Back, alive and kicking, although I wouldn't be surprised if I get forcibly put into the transport... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it all worked just fine - I must have just done the promotion seconds before you! Warofdreams talk 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You OK with this? Just checking. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul appointed me as an FAC delegate a few weeks ago [3]. I don't think most people have noticed yet - good catch :) Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I wasn't sure what Rick was taking issue with. Yes, Karanacs is the new Sandy :) Raul654 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just call me Sandy, Jr. ;) Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the blocking of LaraLove constitutes a funny or appropriate joke, but you should really be ashamed for this completely gratuitous ad hominem sideswipe. The user in question expressed a great deal of sincere (and very public) soul-searching and regret for the "white pride" remarks, and for you to dig it up--over a silly April Fool's joke--is petty and cynical. Consider that your prominent position on the project might require a certain level of class and dignity.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, Fat Man, and I've taken it to heart Raul654 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That was good of you. After posting the above, I re-read the rather hostile comments LaraLove had written that provoked your reply and understand why an equally hostile reply might have seemed warranted at the time. Still, my larger point was that it reflects badly on the project when its most prominent members--who hold official capacities--are not held to higher standards of (for lack of a better word, considering that we are unpaid volunteers) professionalism than loudmouths such as myself (God knows I've engaged in some vicious ad hominem stuff in the past). Thanks for responding.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I am quite concerned. You say you've taken it to heart, but have you directly apologized on her talk page? Something oblique hidden in an AN/I thread might not be the best way to go if you truly are sorry you synthesized that rather outrageous collection of things. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I did apologize to her, both privately in IRC and publicly on AN, and I meant it. Given her latest rantings on WR, however, she was apparently being duplicitous about the whole thing (Raul said we agreed to bury the hatchet. Too bad he failed to realize that I meant I wanted to bury it in his skull.) I can only hope she wasn't also lying about retiring. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back just for you. April Fools'! Yea, I read your message in full when I got back from a dinner party tonight. Your synthesis was absurd and shameful. You can peg me for whatever legitimate issues you can dig up. Trust, there are plenty, but that was just beyond inappropriate. Our IRC conversation was a joke. You weren't even consistent and you completely misrepresented your original ANI post. You still don't see how you caused the drama by posting as you did the first time, much less the second; and continue to claim that by merely requesting a block, I've caused all this drama. By your own comments, my prank was within your acceptable standards. So it makes no sense.

You should not be in a position of power. You've abused that power in the past in a situation this all too closely mirrors, and you knew when you posted your bullshit libel that you could get away with it, just like SWAT did, because of your position of power. If a lowlier editor had done that, they would be blocked right now, or, at the very, very least, they would have been lashed down by countless people in an ANI thread created solely to discuss the appropriate punishment. Policies on this project are unevenly enforced, and one of the most frustrating ones for editors is the shoddy and inconsistent enforcement of the stupid civility policy. Blocks are handed out in the name of CIVIL for the most petty crap, yet people like you can violate it and NPA is the most vulgar ways and get nothing but a little note on your talk page. No matter how nasty I may have been, justifiably or not, you had no right whatsoever, under any circumstances, to pull that card. You flat out fabricated and synthesized. You dug up year-old drama with the sole intent of stirring up drama. You, Raul, are beyond a shadow of a doubt, a hypocrite that can't see his own reflection standing before a mirrored wall. You are everything you denounce. Not only should you be ashamed of yourself, but so should everyone that let you get away with it, just like the same situation that went down last year. لennavecia 04:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about this - as you may know, I have health issues (feel tired a lot of the time), and one of my bad periods came just as this opened. =/ I'm trying to get in and deal with it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your health comes first. If you're not feeling well, please withdraw the nom, take as much time as you need, do whatever you need to do to get healthy, and then come back to it later. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder - if this isn't updated by midnight today, there will be no TFA tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. I had to schedule out a bit further because I'll be in Dallas Friday through Sunday. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry to second-guess you, but it was at April 2nd back when I suggested Agrippina on March 25th, and it was getting a little worrisome to see it hadn't moved since then. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled across Traumatic insemination, and wanted to say; nice work on improving it - it's an interesting article. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I studied that in my parasite biology course, and think you've done a great job. I've nominated the picture for FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

um what were you thinking? putting that grotesque picture there for everyone to see? That sort of thing is not called for you probably offended millions of people today. unless i am mistaken it traces back to you. You should at least apologize for it on the main page discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.105.120 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who picked that picture for the main page. It was in the queue for a week, and no one complained. And, despite the complaints from some people today, I see nothing wrong with featuring that picture on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Raul. Horrifying is sometime a good thing: It raises awareness, for one. That's the wwhole reason those images were released: To make it clear such things could happen, and that care and vaccination is necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed the huge list of sounds marked "Musopen has requested in-line attribution in any article this file is used in."

I'm not sure we should be doing this at all, and if so the wording should be changed. Currently, most if not all in-article instances say "courtesy of musopen". This is not really the case. Since the works are in the public domain, we could publish them with or without their courtesy. If we want to link to them to promote the cause of their operation, this should be decided separately, and is probably something of a WMF thing; but if we give them attribution in the guise of some requirement on their part, this is cause to question the validity of the public domain status.

It's worth noting that Musopen themselves are only a repository for this kind of material and didn't create any of it. Their only role is in helping us find it, and possibly providing the first means of downloading the material. The same could be said of Obama's oath of office were it sourced from YouTube, for example. If attribution is given, it needs to be a much more conscious decision to support this website's cause. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Goddamn. We spend weeks trying to get this prepared for the main page so that there will be something up for the 250th anniversary of Handel's death, but all our points get argued away (no, you can't celebrate a 250th anniversary with one of the person's works and get any points beyond 1 for it... no, just because it's only the third opera FA doesn't make it underrepresented in our crazy moon logic - so it gets replaced.

WP:TFAR leaves me with nothing but a bad taste in my mouth. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that way, and I regret I was wrong when I said that people would hesitate to remove a heavily supported article. The page is running extremely smoothly at present, with minimal intervention from Raul or Sandy. The whole point of TFA/R is to make Raul aware of articles he might want to use in making his decisions on what articles he wants to run. Mission accomplished, if that can still be said without a wry glance at Bush.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If the point is to show Raul options, why put a hard limit of 5? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul set that rule. Five at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Barstoole --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More fishing? I guess anyone who mentions livestock and global warming in the same post will automatically get a WP:CheckUser now? Want to take bets on how Raul will come down on this when he renders his "finding"? I think I see a pattern forming here. Quite the little operation you have going here. Very efficient. --GoRight (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to compare this users contributions with these? Warning: A pattern may emerge ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, and cleaned out the drawer of Scibaby socks created over the last two days. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! 15 newly created socks? Well he is certainly persistent.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good work, Nishkid. Thanks for keeping an eye out for him while I was away. Raul654 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a good chance that the Joseph Priestley House may be permanently closed this summer. The Priestley House itself is fighting this. Ruhrfisch and I were wondering if it would be possible to put this article on the main page sometime soon - it might generate interest in the problem. However, if you feel that this overtly political use of the main page is problematic, I understand. Awadewit (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have any problem with that suggestion. If it keeps the house open, then all the better. Raul654 (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

the "6 or 9" was nothing to do with Agrippina. That was the number of points that A Vindication of the Rights of Woman has according to the point scale. It's always been the 14th. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooops - you're right. My bad. Raul654 (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry iif I got upset, just, well... I have a lot riding on this: the Opera Wikiproject's about to do the same sort of thing for Purcell's 350th, for instance =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when that one is ready to go, some consideration could be given to putting the proposed article on the TFA/R template, or starting a discussion on talk page? I think perhaps part of the communication problem was that the Agrippina article was proposed without getting point feedback from regular TFA/R contributors, and that contributed to a perception we were out to denigrate the article. Better communication might lead to a more congenial experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salutat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mortuary Affairs, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I'd like to request a category switch for USMA. Currently its listed under "Warfare", but I believe that it is best categorized as "Education". Please see my post on the FA discussion page. Though it is a military institution, its an accredited four-year college and should be classified as such. Thanks!  Ahodges7   ^talk 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This was brought to my talk page. I don't know the reasons for the original designation, but at least so far as I can see, Ahodges7 seems to have the right of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs got it. Her switch is OK by me. Raul654 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Traumatic insemination, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A Real Live One. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup and user:Sheldon Williams too. Raul654 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Traumatic insemination 1 edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 12:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on the OTRS issue is here. Perhaps we could just delink his name from the turret explosion article while it's on the main page? Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I appreciate your careful consideration of the issue and for taking the time to explain your decision. The real-life reactions to this and the Moosally article have been interesting. As you may have noticed in other discussions about the main article, soon after someone made this edit to the article's talk page, almost all of the images related to the explosion disappeared from the DoD's image database. Anyway, after Aude completes his/her review of the Moosally article and Thompson's book, hopefully we can renominate the article for main page listing on next year's anniversary. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, don't know why you did this because it's a red link. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It did it because yesterday there were 38 articles that used the phrase "President of the Naval War College" and only 3 of them actually linked to it (with a red link). It makes it difficult to tell what needs to be written if nobody is making relevant red links. Now that all 38 articles link to that phrase it's a lot more likely that someone will write it. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opposite view, don't link it til it's written, especially when something is about to become featured status. It's hard enough to get something to featured and having red links doesn't help. In all that time you spent making the red links, you couldn't made the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was, in fact, planning to write something there sooner or later. But that's beside the point -- a red link there is a good thing: "Academic research conducted in 2008 has shown that red links help Wikipedia grow...In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." -- WP:RED. An article that has zero (or almost zero) incoming links isn't much help to our readers.

Writing short articles isn't hard. The hard part is finding relevant articles to write, which entails finding all or most of the appropriate places to link to that article in the 3-million articles we already have is very hard. If nobody is making red links, it makes it extremely hard for people to write new articles.

As for featured processes -- I don't know how the other featured processes work, but red links are not a valid reason to oppose on FAC (and people who do object to red links are told their objections are not valid). Raul654 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevese on this issue. Red links are great when they lead to an actual article, and usually I have nothing against them, but I cannot see President of the Naval War College ever becoming much more than a stub with a long list of names. Wouldn't it be much more useful to the reader to have a link to the Naval War College? BTW, only Harvard has a page I can find about an institute's president, and it's not a very helpful or informative article. Smb1138 (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(A) When we are talking about someone who held a certain position, it's more relavant and useful to the reader to link to the position instead of the institution. If we are talking about George W. Bush, a link to President of the United States is *a lot* more relevant than a link to United States. (B) Using the right google search I found these in 3 minutes: President of Princeton University, President of Harvard University, President of the University of Florida, Presidents of Rutgers University, President of the University of the City of Manila, President of the University of Michigan, President of the University of Richmond, List of Presidents of the University of Maryland, College Park (and this list is far from exhaustive) Raul654 (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind keeping an eye on Versus22's RfA?

Specifically,

• PETA representative (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Largedog180 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

are unquestionably socks, and I would expect to see a lot more.

Thanks in advance,

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Largedog180. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I received a request saying that I was “Vandalizing” an entry. I am not sure which entry is being referred to here. Any time I have ever edited any page (which I do very rarely) I just add PROVABLE FACTS that have been seemingly overlooked by the author of the entry. When there is something that is very pertinent to today’s current events, and I see that the WIKIPEDIA entry is lacking the full information, I add it. When WIKIPEDIA just parrots what is reported in the media, WIKIPEDIA ceases to be the source of truth that it once was.

Thanks for your time. JoeLoro (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of this month I made an active push for Alleyway on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for the 21st. This was well prior to Riven's listing on the page, or my awareness it was going to be listed. For info the article was listed with 3 points on the request page (2 for date, 1 for first article from myself to ever be listed on the page). The date is important due to being the game's 20th anniversary and the Game Boy handheld's own 20th anniversary. The article was quickly removed however from the list before any support or oppose votes could even be given.

I know you have selected an article already for that date, but it was suggested on the request talk page I ask for you to reconsider. Like I said I know this is probably a wasted effort and I might very well be wasting your time (and if so I'm very sorry), but I'd rather know I at least tried all I could rather than not at all. Thank you for your time and patience.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark we can't find a private way to contact you. Could you please contact me? you are being trolled at another site and we think you should know about it, even if we succeed in controlling them. E-Mail me through the message system here. (KoolerStill). KoolerStill (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoolerStill (talk • contribs) 07:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul, your name and bio details from your user page are on Yahoo answers on a profile dropping browser hijack links as "answers". We can handle that part of it; only you can make an impersonation complaint. I've set up email open on this site, drop me a line. KoolerStill (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, ever since May 5th, the featured article system seems to think it is still May 5, 11:29. This is quite annoying to me, as I subscribe to the xml feed, and have not gotten anything new since the May 5 article. I can still get new stuff by clicking on the May 5 article, then changing the URL to reflect the current date, but it would be good to have the problem fixed.

The latest is he's changed to be "Eric Moller"supposedly a wikimedia director. I think this discussion if better off public pages. KoolerStill (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, sorry to bother you but I have question concerning this FAC [4]. If FAC reviewers ask for the article to include material not covered by modern scholarship and oppose the article because it is not included - do you still fail the article for FA? This happened also on Roman Catholic Church when a reviewer wanted the article to include mention of a theory that she said some scholars supported - that the Catholic Church did not exist before the 4th or 5th Century. Zero scholars say this and all scholars (even the ones to which she referred) made mention of the Church of Rome as an entity in existence in the 1st century. If I could have found wording to support her assertions (and even she could not find wording), then I would have included that POV. The same situation exists now on Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism where reviewers are asking me to include a history of the Ten Commandments that is not covered in any books of modern scholarship on the subject of developement of Catholic Doctrine or the subject of Ten Commandments in RCC other than what I have already included in the article. Sandy once told me she is just a "bean counter" I think making the point that she just counts supports and opposes. Is this how FAC works? Can I just go to any FAC and place the most unreasonable demand upon it (or else it gets failed)? That does not seem like a very good way to improve Wikipedia or encourage people to write FA's. NancyHeise ^talk 13:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't exactly what I meant, Nancy :) I don't just count Supports and Opposes, I meant that I interpret consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, my FAC [5] has now been archived because I did not create original research based upon primary documents the one opposer asked me to create. I think FAC is a waste of time. I guess it took me a long time to realize this but I was hoping that some objectivity existed in the FAC process - stupid me. NancyHeise ^talk 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul, if you are interested, I have made a suggestion for the FA process here [6]. NancyHeise ^talk 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RedRose333 (talk · contribs) - lots of contribs, some good, some v bad; has been warned, blocked, etc...is also a useful contributor. Has never responded to any message, ever. Also no edit summary.

I mentioned this to an admin here, and they told me of a similar case; they did a CU to work out the users native lingo, and then pasted a message in Spanish, or whatever it was. Viola, prob solved, another useful addition to the proj.

So...would that be a constructive idea in this case? See, I'm unsure if it's a suitable CU request; it did work before; I wondered if you might consider it, and just give an indication of the country - or speak to the user, or whatever.

tb me or someth, I don't watch. Kthxbai,  Chzz  ►  02:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised that a proposed Meetup/DC 7 is being discussed here. We need your help to figure out some of the details! You are being sent this notice because you previously expressed interest in such meetups. If you no longer wish to receive such notices, then please leave your user name .
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Arrogant Radial? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[7] is a bit crap; Scibaby used to be able to do better William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he (they) is losing his mojo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul654. I was looking at File:Iridium logo.jpg, which you added conditions to based on talking with Iridium's corporate communications director. I just wanted to know why that is included with the file, as the conditions listed are even more restrictive than the usual fair use rationale. In addition, strictly speaking, the file does not abide by one of those conditions--the logo lacks the registered trademark symbol. I will probably upload a new version of the logo, and I don't think there's any sense in keeping the conditions stated by the Iridium employee for the new version; a fair use rationale would be exactly the same, if not less restrictive. Or is there something I'm missing? - Gump Stump (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. As far as I can tell you didn't respond; FYI, I've uploaded a new file at File:Iridium Satellite LLC logo.svg and listed the old one for deletion. - Gump Stump (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This edit wouldn't be worth mentioning, except that I have needed to make a similar edit to Tomorrow's Featured Article Main Page summary about 30 times. So when you (or whoever does this task) condenses "(William Henry; 21 August 1765 – 20 June 1837)" to "(1765 – 1837)", please remove the spaces to make it "(1765–1837)". Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia's WP:ENDASH guideline says:

• "Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940)." Art LaPella (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll bear that in mind. Raul654 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul,

A little known (and even less used) feature of the title blacklist allows us to create protected pseudo namespaces based on matching a specified stem. Specifically, one could prohibit non-admins from editing all pages starting "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/"... Such protection would apply to all current and not yet created pages, would not appear in the log, and could not be revoked on a case-by-case basis.

Nonetheless, if the intention is for each of these to be permanently protected forever, we could do that automatically. Would that be a good thing? Dragons flight (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than dealing with TFA pictures that later turn out to by copyvios and are deleted (which is a fairly rare occurrence), I can't think of any reason for people to be editing the old blurbs. So yes, this sounds like a good idea to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found one occasion to edit a TFA blurb... a random </div> (ex. here) had interfered with attempts at transcluding several TFA blurbs consecutively at WP:HOCKEY. Not that something like that would be hard for an admin to fix. Resolute 23:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this. All pages of the form "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/<word> <number>, <number>" are now automatically restricted so only admins can edit them. So you don't need to add protection anymore. Dragons flight (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I seemed to get two different versions of the review for this. Using {{subst:FARMessage|Solar System}}. I was confused by the "/ArchiveN" the instructions say to add to the end of the article_name. Are there cleared instructions available which describe what this archive number is, and where to obtain it for a specific article?. Hope you can tidy up? Please? Cheers HarryAlffa (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is already set up correctly: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Solar System/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, dokay. Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, here I go forum shopping again!  ;) I've initiated some discussion about nominating this hockey player's article as a FA despite knowing there will be several major status changes to Tavares' career within the next six months. The goal of this little project was to make an attempt at having Tavares' article serve as TFA on June 26, when he is expected to be the first player selected at the 2009 NHL Entry Draft. Because of these expected changes to his status, I've been seeking opinions on whether it is worthwhile to nominate this article at FAC now. Mike Christie makes a very good point at WT:FAC about wasting reviewers time, but otherwise opinion on the validity of a nomination seems divided.

Ultimately, I think the question of whether Nurmsook and I should attempt FA status comes down to whether you are willing to consider this article as being TFA on that date. I am not asking you to let me jump the request queue here, but if you aren't willing to entertain the notion of putting this article on the front page, knowing that Tavares' will reach a significant point in his hockey career and life on the very day it appears, then I think Mike Christie's point is spot on and we should hold off on a nomination. Otherwise, if you are open to the idea, then I think we may look for a couple good copyeditors to help ensure quality, then make the attempt, as I would love to see a topical hockey article featured in the middle of the summer! Thanks, Resolute 23:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul, i spent hours working on a page and it was instantly deleted... I posted references, links, etc. this other guy noted it as 'attack' only, which is false. It points out facts with direct references. In contrast, how come the 'Intelligent Design' page, with 90% criticism of the ID as a 'movement', debunked by 'almost all' scientists, etc. ,etc., etc. how come THAT page isn't instantly deleted?

Thanks for looking into this... Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImaPatriot (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ImaPatriot (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(A) Your 'American liberals' article was created on Simple english. I'm not sure how things work over there. But it's pretty clearly a POV fork - an attempt to create a biased subarticle on a larger topic (liberalism).

(B) The ID article is far from the "90%" criticism number that you throw around as if it were true. If anything, I think it's rather tame -- nowhere does it make the obvious comparison (to the trojan horse) that numerous reliable sources do. In another case, the article presents Behe's claims for irreducible complexity (Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.) but it doesn't mention the fairly-significant fact that all of these, as well as at least one other (the eye) example, have been definitively debunked. On the other hand, one big problem with representing the pro-ID arguments is that their arguments are basically incoherent -- their descriptions change substantially depending who is describing it and to whom they are describing it, and their arguments are mutually inconsistent, and (in the case of Debinksi's pseudo-mathematics) intentionally incomplete. The pro-side is accurately represented, and if it makes their case seem weak, that's because they don't have much intellectual firepower. Raul654 (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How about these two as a DUAL TFA? They're both FAs and are world wide known. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion surrounding the dual Obama/McCain TFA last Election Day? Check the WT:TFA/R archives if not.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Big deal. That was based on politics. Hanna and Barbera are popular the world over. And how often have cartoonists been on TFA? And if we pick just one, I'd pick Hanna. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Images_2

that comment in the link provided above this line is specifically for you

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks, one more question. Ikip (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

On May 8, 2009, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement celebrates the internationally recognized World Red Cross Red Crescent Day. This year is quite special as well as it marks 150 years since the Battle of Solferino – a battle that made Henry Dunant found the Red Cross. I would like to see the article about the Movement as a "featured article" in the English as well as French version of Wikipedia on May 8. Can you please point me in the right direction to make this happen? Thanks a million! Isaac Griberg (Isaac Griberg) 11:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To appear on the main page, an article must have reached Featured Article status. This means it must meet the Featured Article criteria and go through the featured article nomination process. It appears that Red Cross still needs a significant amount of work to meet the FA criteria. After that, a nomination usually lasts one to four weeks. Given that May 8 is less than 2 weeks away, I think it unlikely that the article would be ready to be promoted to FA by then. I encourage you to improve the article, and perhaps it can be featured at a later date. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply Karanacs. What you say makes perfectly sense. Can you please point me in the right direction in finding administrators for the German and/or Russian Wikipedia? As the article about the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is a featured article in these languages, it might be possible to see them as highlighted in the "featured articles" section on May 8. Thank you very much. Isaac Griberg (Isaac Griberg) 17:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not see this as an option right now. First, other language Wikipedias may not have the same criteria for Featured Articles as English Wikipedia. A straight translation of German, Russian, or Romanian Wikipedia articles may not suffice for English Wikipedia. Other editors have tried to translate articles without understanding sources, and editors who are involved in featured articles on the English Wikipedia have protested this since the translator was unable to read the sources to verify accuracy. Furthermore, the nomination process for featured articles takes at least a week for an article that may have no problems at all. For an article with multiple problems, it could take a month for it to be promoted if all the problems in the article are fixed. If you were to take on this article yourself, it might take a few weeks or months to verify all the facts to reliable sources in English. Writing an FA of this size is a very large and complex task. This is a worthy article that should be an FA by all means, and I do not wish to dash your enthusiasm for the topic. There is always time to improve articles, however. It does not have to on the main page on May 8, 2009. Remember our names; if you improve the article with full citations, come back and ask us to assist you with copy editing and peer reviews. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply Moni3. Yes, I understand and do agree that focus should be on developing the English version of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement article. However, as I noticed that the German and Russian version of the article are already marked wit a star – featured article status – I wonder if there is any chance I can suggest the article, in one of these two languages, to be highlighted on the German / Russian Wikipedia on May 8. Please let me know if you A) think this is feasible and B) if there is any chance you might be able to point me in the right direction to find Raul654's counterpart in the German / Russian Wikipedia. Thanks a million. Isaac Griberg (Isaac Griberg) 11:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Raul654's day! For being one of our BOLDest users ever, enjoy being the Star of the day, Raul654! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 05:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

I was attempting to learn how to convert video formats to OGG, but I'm afraid that I've run into a bit of a wall. I don't use the command line function on my Linux system (I know, I know), so I'm having problems with the recommended processes. Do you know of a program that can convert FLV to OGG for Fedora Linux? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to do it with ffmpeg on the command line - basically, nothing except command line programs can output an ogg theora video. Because ffmpeg's command line options are, shall we say, numerous and confusing, what I do is I use a python wrapper program to do flv->mpg conversions. It shouldn't be difficult to tweak it to do flv->ogg conversions. Give me a week-or-so and I'll see what I can do. (I'm on a quasi-vacation until Sunday). Raul654 (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I've managed to get a clip of the FLV file in MPEG now, but when I try to encode it in theora using ffmpeg, the video and audio no longer match up and all sorts of weird things. Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when you have time to work on this (there's no rush). Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

O wise and benevolent TFA fixer-guy, I notice there are no TFA's set so far for May 7 or 8. Star Trek is to be released in limited locations on the 7th and for a full release on the 8th... d'ya think that one of the Star Trek film FAs might be a good fit on either of those dates? (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the most thematically linked, but hey, we'd take anything...) Humbly, your faithful FA servants. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I'm coming here directly to ask you to consider Talyllyn Railway as TFA for 14 May, as it's the anniversary of the first train in preservation. I've been looking at this date for the article for some time, and tried running it through the TFA requests page. Unfortunately, due to SkyTrain (Vancouver) being featured last month, it didn't have enough points to sustain it. I see you were sympathetic to a similar request to place Alleyway on the front page recently, so I'm hoping you could consider this request. Many thanks, and keep up the good work :-)  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the article, Feature model, has been edited by experts in the field and cites research conducted by themselves. As such it has been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Feature_model. Could you take a look at and make suggestions to whether it is notable to the COI discussion as I (and others) have absolutely no idea what the article is about? Thanks a lot. Smartse (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"The lake is the subject of the concept album One Hour by the Concrete Lake, by Pain of Salvation. "

Hey, I removed this because it was a bit misplaced in the article and didn't have a reference from a reliable source. Has this been mentioned in any of the relevant literature about the lake? Regards, - Francis Tyers · 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009 This box: view • talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way that the FAC for Ralph Bakshi could be extended? I felt that the last FAC ended too quickly, and the current FAC is being opposed by an editor whose main concern seems to be that I am not focusing on individual episodes of a television series, which is hardly a major issue considering how extensively the article has been researched. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger would be a good model to follow. Nice work though. Ceoil (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Weber. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a question: Are those lists that you have for prunning? I noticed a lot of blue links there (page 23 in particular) so was not sure if you were keeping the blue links intact or actually letting people remove them? Otherwise if it is cool to remove them, at the end of me removing the blue links I would be willing to add up the values and give some sort of total (via copy/pasting the lists and placing them on excell, I wont count them individually haha!) just to give a bit of incentive perhaps? Cheers!Calaka (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please prune them. Also, many of them are links to things we already have, with slightly different capitalization. Raul654 (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, will get on it, although I think it would take a while to get through all the pages. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A user you have blocked is now asking to be unbocked, wait here a second and I will find the page as he requested you take a look at his statement. 'The Ninjalemming' 15:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is 'The Ninjalemming' 15:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Defense of Sihang Warehouse/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sydney Roosters
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aramaic language

hi Raul. All these FAs need closing. I initiated 1/3 and rewrote 2 so I can't obviously. Joelito appears to have gone on an unannounced Wikibreak for the alst 10 days. The first is 22 days old in FARC, no work done, unanimous. The others are both over a month old and unanimous so far YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As promised...

		The Original Barnstar
		For finding a way to automatically composite images from zoom interfaces, I award Raul654 this barnstar.ragesoss (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rageross. The people who work on painting and other visual arts should be made aware so that they can use that tool. Raul654 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Audio Barnstar
		For the many, many music files you've been adding to the wiki. Thanks! Yintaɳ  10:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As above, thank you. Raul654 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a quote that was at the very beginning of the Intelligent Design article. You said my edit "was harmful". Yet all I did was correct a quote. I thought Wikipedia was all about accuracy. Apparently not. Your change is in violation of policy (No Original Research (WP:NOR) and given that you claim to have a phd, it must have been intentional censorship.

Given that the article is locked down, it appears that you are not interested in the truth.

I will give you 3 days for you to unlock the article and fix the quote. If not, I will be contacting the media and who ever else I feel is necessary.

And don't bother censoring this comment either. I have a screen shot.

AnalystsAreUs (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edit changed a verbatim quotation to something it didn't say. Several others on the talk page have already told you that your edit was harmful. And I don't take well to ultimatums and threats. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, I'm going to block you. Raul654 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, The previous specification 'In neurophysiology' in the very introduction of the 'action potential' article was logically necessary, because electrical excitation takes place in non-neuronal cells as well, e.g. in heart and plant cells. Simple deletion of this specification from the existing text promotes messy ideas, such as 'nerve pulses' in nerve-free organisms such as protists. Well, from a historical point of view, action potential research does focus on neuronal action potentials. However from an evolutioanary point of view, electrical excitation existed way before neurons. Please notice and revise. Solfiz (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Female Model-Thomas Eakins.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting these out! I'm sure un-zoomified works will work out very well for us. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Shoemaker :) Raul654 (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated It Happened to Alexa Foundation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Happened to Alexa Foundation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Showtime2009 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Raul, I hope you are doing well. Do you remember dealing with user a few months back? If so, and if you have the time, could you help out again? They have returned once again. This time using the account User:Felix 12 22. You uncovered several sleeper-socks last time, and was able to block the account he was using as well. By all rights he should be blocked per wp duck, but one has to be pretty familiar with this user to see the connection. Seicer used to deal with this guy, but has since retired. Anyways, I hate to bother you with this, I know you are busy. Thank you, and have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Raul. I see you haven't been online the past few days. I wanted to let you know that this matter has already been taken care of. User:FisherQueen has blocked indefinitely as a sock of USEDfan. Thank you anyways though, and I wish you the best. Cheers. Landon1980 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in eliminating a few of the red links here. And somebody recently said there were few articles left to create? There is about 2 years work here. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WHere is that essay that lists the pros and cons of protecting/not protecting the main page? I thought it was part of WP:PEREN but it's not. We should add it there. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, I noticed that I never received a response to my e-mail to you and wondered if it was lost. It contained instructions for your request about those two images. Dcoetzee 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Dcoetzee (and everyoner else who has been waiting for a response from me) - I spent last weekend road-tripping to my summer job. This is the first time in over a week that I've had internet access. Hopefully I'll be getting regular access over the weekend. Raul654 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gamma-ray burst/archive1. Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Karanacs got it while I was away. Raul654 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Raul. I've seen the huge numbers of music files you've added – tremendous work. Do you know of any way of getting Smetana's signature piece, the Bartered Bride Overture, as a public domaim music file? This would be a great addition. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was surprisingly easy to find -- File:Smetana - Bartered Bride overture.ogg Raul654 (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks indeed! This will be a great addition to Bedrich Smetana which I am working on at the moment, and will also encourage me to develop the Bartered Bride article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has just been promoted. Please keep it in mind for 1 April 2010. (In other words, please don't schedule a main page appearance before then.) —David Levy 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, are you willing to allow the Gropecunt Lane article on the main page (not necessarily on April Fools' Day, but on some future date), or does it fall into the same category as the Jenna Jameson article? —David Levy 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page#Gropecunt Lane. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? —David Levy 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Raul has indicated on his userpage that he's been busy, and this is not something urgent, as it's ten months out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Mark is busy, but I'm not referring to the 1 April idea; I'm referring to the question of whether the article falls into the same category as the Jenna Jameson article. I completely understand if it takes Mark some time to respond, and I just wanted to make sure that he noticed the thread (and per his above note, I waited until after the weekend). —David Levy 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article in its entirety. Very interesting and amusing. I'm sure there are going to be some people offended, but I don't think it's in the same league as Jenna. I'm OK with putting it on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark! —David Levy 05:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
June 14, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I might be attending the Kennedy Galleries tomorrow and taking the requested pictures. Have any other information for me to go on, besides for taking pictures of Thomas Eakin's works (and the art descriptions)? ^blurred_peace ☮ 01:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Kennedy Gallery website is devoid of content, and the Smithsonian list is unmanageably long. If you see any artists whose name you recognize, snap a picture. You might also want to keep your eyes peeled for works by John Singleton Copley and Winslow Homer, and maybe some early works by Edward Hopper (which would be in the public domain by now). Raul654 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

En dash in the opening year range should be unspaced. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul. Just wanted to let you know that I changed the image for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 1, 2009; hope you don't mind. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Raul654. You have new messages at Blurpeace's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^blurred_peace ☮ 19:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed lately that the IP range 24.205.64.0/18 is blocked, due to sockpuppetry by someone named Scibaby. This is the range of my usual institutional ISP, and the block is actually useful for me, as it reminds me to log in when I forget (or to re-login when I don't notice I've timed-out).

However, I am working through a network at IPAC (the NASA/Caltech Infrared Processing and Analysis Center) which has a lot of extremely competent astronomers and technical support people (as well as a certain famously mischievous and/or opinionated element...). I know Wikipedia is generally reluctant to block IP's, and based on the duration ("...set to expire: 05:43, 4 December 2013") I suppose the case of Scibaby et al must have been fairly serious.

Anyhow, I wonder if WP really wants to block this IP range for so long, from such a generally eminent institution.

Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby is a prolific vandal and sockpuppeteer who targets our global warming articles. He has continued vandalizing Wikipedia despite 6 month and later full year blocks on his IPs. (He continued vandalizing using other IPs, waited for the blocks to expire, and resumed vandalizing from the previously-blocked IPs) Looking at the block log, it looks like that range was blocked after it was used by his User:Iksel sockpuppet. But after two years of playing whack-a-sock, I'm not about to unblock any of the ranges he's used unless there was a guarantee of some kind that he wouldn't resume using it. Raul654 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Raul, thanks very much for scheduling this. Is there any chance of using this image of the Milky Way galaxy taken from the park as the Main Page image instead? The Milky Way photo is the lead image in the article. People go to the park to see the stars there, so the rationale is to show a view from the park (which the lead image is). When we asked the photographer to license his astrophotos we said we hoped the article would become FA and that one of his astrophotos would be used on the Main Page some day. If not, that's OK too, it is nice to have it as TFA. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, regretfully an editor for unkown reasons has decided to try and sabotage the benzodiazepine article review. Unfortunately as wikipedia policies for dealing with WP:DISRUPT and trolling behaviour are inadequate and because it is difficult to prove it is not good faith and ecause the standard advice is enter into dispute resolution (when it is not a dispute but an attack) there is nothing that can be done but to request that the article be delisted. I can only speculate that perhaps I disagreed with an edit or something and they took it personally and tried to ruin the nomination? I don't know but I feel I have no choice but to request that the article is delisted and let them win their games. I make this post to you as someone who has had experience in these situations with disruptive editors. I am currently involved in an arbcom regarding similar behaviour of another editor and know the situation that I am in and how difficult it is to prove their intentions and prove bad faith etc etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

...is back. See User:Tedeshi. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by Nishkid64

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Totally unexpected. You do me too much honor.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked this range due to collateral damage. You may wish to monitor it and re-block if necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Note that this was used by Scibaby (user:Lettson) in March. If he comes back, I'm going to reblock. Raul654 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to getting all those listed red links with you! Those lists must be from the mid-90's, since I know way too many of the pop-culture references! I'd be in big trouble today... I'll be back to do a few each day. See ya! Jokestress (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Stanford Archive goes back to the mid/late 90s. If memory serves, the lists were generated from the order they are listed in the archive, which is roughly chronological -- so the lists should likewise be roughly chronological, with newer pop culture references in the later lists.

Lists #1, #2, and #23 are pretty well close to done. The others, not so much :)Raul654 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries on the deleted redirect, though I would argue that most of the character names can be redirected to the work in which they appear. If someone wants to expand them into articles at a later date, that's fine. Your thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, I'm OK with redirecting characters to their relevant works. Raul654 (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

m:DFTT. Unless you're just having fun with him... ;-) cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right -- I should be using my time here more productively. Raul654 (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just locally uploaded and protected the image used in the blurb- have I done that correctly? I saw that it wasn't protected and just did what seemed obvious... J Milburn (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks correct to me, although I thought there was something automated in place to do that. Raul654 (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)